Closing Argument (9)

Plaskett's Cancer Article:

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

The State heavily quotes Dr. Plaskett's statement in his aloe vera and cancer paper that it would be irresponsible to represent that aloe vera is an effective treatment or cure for cancer because of the lack of clinical research. However, Dr. Plaskett's statement is a transparent attempt on his part to avoid criticism because of the sensitive nature of any representations relating to cancer. However, when his statement is read in context with all of the other statements contained within the same paper, let alone read in context with all of the other Plaskett papers in evidence, it is clear that Dr. Plaskett believes that aloe vera is an effective treatment for many forms of cancer, as well as a host of other illnesses, and he so states.

The State's Unfounded Reliance on Testimony and Exhibits In An Effort To Prove Its Case.

The State's reliance on the testimony of Dr. Heggers to support its Proposed Findings of Fact in ¶¶ 36a and 38a that Respondents' products do not cure cancer is ludicrous and disingenuous. No where throughout the hearing did Dr. Heggers express such an opinion. The State's reliance on Dr. Pearce's testimony as support for its contention in its Proposed Finding of Fact in ¶ 38f that T-Up is neither a powerful immune booster nor an effective treatment for diseases of the immune system is similarly outrageous. Dr. Pearce repeatedly confirmed the accuracy of T-Up's representations regarding T-Up in its marketing materials and confirmed the effectiveness of T-Up in strengthening and modulating the human immune system.

The State goes on to cite Roberta Brady to support its allegation in Proposed Finding of Fact ¶ 36a. that T-Up's products have not been shown to cure cancer. Roberta Brady expressly acknowledged in her affidavit that she had never used T-Up products. Rather, she returned these products unopened and received a full refund. (S43 at ¶ 7).

Similarly, the State inaccurately cited Linda Macek in support of its contention in its Proposed Finding of Fact ¶ 38c. that T-Up does not cause a doubling of T-4 lymphocytes in persons with HIV or AIDS every three weeks. No where during the course of Ms. Macek's testimony was she asked or did she offer the results she had obtained while ingesting T-Up. Therefore, the State's reliance on her testimony to support the alleged ineffectiveness of T-Up is completely unfounded. Moreover, no where in T-Up's marketing materials did it represent that T-Up would double the T-4 lymphocytes of persons with AIDS or HIV. Rather, the Brochure merely reported that such a result had been observed by Hoffman in his Baltimore AIDS research. (S9 at 3).

Finally, Footnote 9 on page 16 of the State's Memorandum of Law bears special mention. The State there affirmatively represents to the Court that "Carrington Laboratories refuses to rely on the same body of research that is cited by Respondents and, consequently, it is not currently selling any aloe products designed for human consumption." (citing Heggers, Tr. at 5112-13 and Hennessee, Tr. at 2140). Messrs. Heggers and Hennessee merely testified that they did not know what products Carrington Laboratories was selling for human consumption - nothing more.

The State knows full well that it is attempting to convince the Court of a far reaching proposition that is false. Carrington Laboratory's 10K filed with the SEC, D36, was withdrawn by Respondents because it was considered redundant, not anticipating that the State would dare to make such a patently false representation to the Court. Nevertheless, the Court may take judicial notice of Carrington Laboratory's 10K SEC filing. Pages 1, 2, 4, 5, 14 and 44 are attached hereto. Carrington Laboratories does not sell acemannan products for human consumption. Rather, its wholly owned subsidiary Caraloe, Inc. does so. (SEC filing at 2). Caraloe, Inc. markets its "patented complex carbohydrates technology" (acemannan) through the health food store market (SEC filing at 4). Carrington also markets injectable mannans as "acemannan immunostimulants." (SEC filing at 5). In 1996, the net sales for Caraloe, Inc.'s home health care market totaled $3,694,000. (SEC filing at 5).

There would be no end to this tome, if Respondents pointed out each of the State's references that does not support the proposition for which it is cited.

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

Continue